If you're anonymously charged with the crime and refuse to appear to contest it, you're now a fugitive.
Even if you're not guilty of the crime, the fugitive charges don't disappear. Even if you're not guilty. That's what you're saying. The courts DGAF if you knew you were being charged or not. And this foreigner is rightfully questioning it.
And I question it, too. It smacks of secret tribunals, which are explicitly forbidden by the constitution. Anonymous charges in public are nearly the same as secret.
The law says you have a right to not be detained without reasonable cause, and freedom in security of your belongings from unwarranted searches.
Checkpoints prevent these lawful protections.
They get around this in some areas by publishing where these checkpoints will be. All of these actions take away rights by claiming exigent circumstances or public interest. Due to well-deserved lawsuits, they have to restore those rights somehow to prevent abuses.
But you're complaining about how those rights are restored. You are backwards.
> "It isn't the bacon that is the problem, it is the additives."
WTF are you going on about? Is sodium nitrite an additive? I think it is.
> "Nobody is trying to take away your bacon."
You take away additives, you take away bacon. It doesn't exist without additives, specifically nitrite in some form. And additional additives, specifically erythorbic acid, make it safer.
You're a fucking ignorant philistine, whereas, I have a fucking curing chamber in my back room. My pinky understands the science, laws, chemistry, and biology about curing better than your entire body.
Yes, cured meats increase chance of cancer. WHO proved it. They also claim it's highly likely red meat (uncured) also increases chance of cancer.
You have about a 4% chance of getting colon cancer in your life. If you eat 2 lbs of cooked bacon a day for life, that increases to something like a 10% chance. Two fucking pounds of bacon a day, every day. You'll die of heart disease long before cancer claims you if you're eating 2 lbs/day.
It has to do with US law, not what you're used to.
Reread what he said. It is correct. By law, pork belly bacon cured with nitrites from a natural source must be labeled "uncured". By law, adding the same chemical directly must be labeled "cured" or "nitrites added", and cannot be labeled "uncured" despite being exactly the same chemical.
If it's bacon, it has nitrites (or nitrates which convert to nitrites through a biological process). If it doesn't have any nitrites added, it is not bacon and calling it that is probably violating labeling laws.
Bullshit. One of the largest studies done (ever in science) was to determine if there's a link between nitrite cured meats and cancers, and there definitely is a link. The unknowns are whether it's nitrosamines or something else but the common ingredient was cured meats.
Your layman's opinion with zero evidence and zero citations doesn't override the expansive WHO study which spanned several countries.
This website is full of scientists and I'm surprised I'm the first one to call out your bullshit.
Muscle meats like bacon do not need nitrites to prevent botulism. Basically if it's not ground, nitrites aren't needed and literally tons of meats are cured without nitrites/nitrates with no risk of botulism.
But nitrites are what make bacon bacon. They change the flavor and texture. Otherwise it's just pork belly. So there is no nitrite-free way of making bacon that doesn't carry some small extra risk of colon cancer.
No, they're not. They're adding it because they're required to for health reasons. All brined/injected bacon requires vit c or erythorbic acid, a salt related to ascorbic acid, to be added to bacon by us law to scavenge extra nitrites.
It's not for preserving, and you know nothing about meat curing or additives.
All living things did not develop ineffective toxins to prevent being eaten. How could this evolve it it takes 30 years to have an effect long past the breeding cycle of the eaten species? Very few species have developed this, mostly plants.
Your knowledge of biology is highly suspect, as is your knowledge of curing.
Oxygen, the primary purpose of adding nitrites, prevents clostridium botulinium from growing. It doesn't kill it and oxygen isn't toxic. Toxicity is based on not only the material, but the dosage which you are ignoring.
TLDR: food never evolved to develop toxins to kill us. That is not how it works for nearly all species. Salt and dry curing is to take up available water to slow pathogen growth until there's not enough water, not to poison them with toxins.
There's certainly room for stretches of imagination. The bidder can probably refuse to purchase based on then item materially different than advertised, this cannot be "harmed". That is probably the extent of it. Southebys will certainly not legally enforce the bid, but probably give first refusal.
My ancestors were killed by pythons! The language should change its name.
On a serious note, Iâ(TM)d never associated the two before this article. Thereâ(TM)s nothing forbidden about the words master or slave in this context. Itâ(TM)s the association we attach, correct or not, that affects the interpretation.
That said itâ(TM)s still more descriptive to use words like controller, but parent already has a clear definition in cs which would be made ambiguous if used in place of master.
It's a CMOS, but their 42mpx full frame sensor was developed by Sony and Nikon and both use it in different cameras. What's Nikon going to do? Nikon is going to join them.
Sony has pioneered this with their a7s line and have some of the best low light sensors made. Phone cameras kind of have a requirement for cramming in pixels due to the size. I'd be happy with a 5mpx camera that's very sensitive to low light, but most people wouldn't.
Personally i think the law should require notice of copyright in the form of a watermark or some other means.
While this is a de facto method of preventing infringement, it's automatically copyrighted by treaty that nearly all nations have signed onto.
This requirement you suggest is really bad. If someone crops or removes a watermark and reposts it, it would allow someone else to appropriate that image. You could make a company that all it does is remove watermarks from one of the few countries that is not a Berne treaty signatory, and others could claim it wasn't copyrighted because it had no watermark, ignoring that some asshole removed the notice.
By making it automatically copyrighted, it removes this dangerous loophole. If it's fixed in a permanent medium, it's copyrighted. Oddly, the creative commons accidentally added it back in, because some people were doing exactly that and causing a minefield for people using works in the creative commons. It puts a big burden to double-check all CC works.
The court actually ruled according to the article [petapixel.com] that the usage was non-commercial: because the photo was not used to advertise a product or generate revenue.
The court doesn’t think there’s any evidence that Brammer was financially harmed by the photo’s use.
This is what they ruled, and that is not consistent with the law.
They used it for commercial purposes. That they claim the owner wasn't harmed is not part of the criteria for fair use, but rather, determining damages.
It is absolutely commercial use, and it should absolutely be appealed for the sake of all photographers out there. This is opening the gates for theft, and I'm sure every stock image company will chip in to pay for his legal fees... and a few large corporations like google might chip in to fight it anticipating a huge amount of new revenue.
But actually, why don't you agree with having to prove (via incredibly simple quiz) that you read the article you're about to comment on? If you comment without having read it, it's automatically off-topic.
It's like trying to discuss answers on an english test based only on the answer, without having read the question.
What you said about emulators might be true, but is immaterial.
He was found out because they looked at the code and found it mathematically impossible for the code to generate that time.
Many other techniques are used to find cheaters. Some of them double-down and have everything removed from the leaderboards as not only being cheats, but haven't learned to stop lying. Others have confessed, and recreated some of their legitimate scores.
Bleem! was a really cool PSx emulator, and the graphics actually looked better. Often game textures were higher res in the files, but the PSx couldn't display them. Your PC could, however, and many games looked far better on the PC.
I bough several copies of Bleem! in order to throw money at them, while they would face the inevitable lawsuit from Sony. They did, and they were financially crushed under the legal boot when Sony eventually brought it to bear. Never even went to court.
Slashdot Mirror
When it can determine its own press release is a lie, then I'll believe it.
If you're anonymously charged with the crime and refuse to appear to contest it, you're now a fugitive.
Even if you're not guilty of the crime, the fugitive charges don't disappear. Even if you're not guilty. That's what you're saying. The courts DGAF if you knew you were being charged or not. And this foreigner is rightfully questioning it.
And I question it, too. It smacks of secret tribunals, which are explicitly forbidden by the constitution. Anonymous charges in public are nearly the same as secret.
The law says you have a right to not be detained without reasonable cause, and freedom in security of your belongings from unwarranted searches.
Checkpoints prevent these lawful protections.
They get around this in some areas by publishing where these checkpoints will be. All of these actions take away rights by claiming exigent circumstances or public interest. Due to well-deserved lawsuits, they have to restore those rights somehow to prevent abuses.
But you're complaining about how those rights are restored. You are backwards.
I will not buy a TV with a video camera.
I'd be furious if I found out my TV had one, that only needed a software update to activate.
> "It isn't the bacon that is the problem, it is the additives."
WTF are you going on about? Is sodium nitrite an additive? I think it is.
> "Nobody is trying to take away your bacon."
You take away additives, you take away bacon. It doesn't exist without additives, specifically nitrite in some form. And additional additives, specifically erythorbic acid, make it safer.
You're a fucking ignorant philistine, whereas, I have a fucking curing chamber in my back room. My pinky understands the science, laws, chemistry, and biology about curing better than your entire body.
Yes, cured meats increase chance of cancer. WHO proved it. They also claim it's highly likely red meat (uncured) also increases chance of cancer.
You have about a 4% chance of getting colon cancer in your life. If you eat 2 lbs of cooked bacon a day for life, that increases to something like a 10% chance. Two fucking pounds of bacon a day, every day. You'll die of heart disease long before cancer claims you if you're eating 2 lbs/day.
It has to do with US law, not what you're used to.
Reread what he said. It is correct. By law, pork belly bacon cured with nitrites from a natural source must be labeled "uncured". By law, adding the same chemical directly must be labeled "cured" or "nitrites added", and cannot be labeled "uncured" despite being exactly the same chemical.
If it's bacon, it has nitrites (or nitrates which convert to nitrites through a biological process). If it doesn't have any nitrites added, it is not bacon and calling it that is probably violating labeling laws.
Bullshit. One of the largest studies done (ever in science) was to determine if there's a link between nitrite cured meats and cancers, and there definitely is a link. The unknowns are whether it's nitrosamines or something else but the common ingredient was cured meats.
Your layman's opinion with zero evidence and zero citations doesn't override the expansive WHO study which spanned several countries.
This website is full of scientists and I'm surprised I'm the first one to call out your bullshit.
Muscle meats like bacon do not need nitrites to prevent botulism. Basically if it's not ground, nitrites aren't needed and literally tons of meats are cured without nitrites/nitrates with no risk of botulism.
But nitrites are what make bacon bacon. They change the flavor and texture. Otherwise it's just pork belly. So there is no nitrite-free way of making bacon that doesn't carry some small extra risk of colon cancer.
No, they're not. They're adding it because they're required to for health reasons. All brined/injected bacon requires vit c or erythorbic acid, a salt related to ascorbic acid, to be added to bacon by us law to scavenge extra nitrites.
It's not for preserving, and you know nothing about meat curing or additives.
No.
All living things did not develop ineffective toxins to prevent being eaten. How could this evolve it it takes 30 years to have an effect long past the breeding cycle of the eaten species? Very few species have developed this, mostly plants.
Your knowledge of biology is highly suspect, as is your knowledge of curing.
Oxygen, the primary purpose of adding nitrites, prevents clostridium botulinium from growing. It doesn't kill it and oxygen isn't toxic. Toxicity is based on not only the material, but the dosage which you are ignoring.
TLDR: food never evolved to develop toxins to kill us. That is not how it works for nearly all species. Salt and dry curing is to take up available water to slow pathogen growth until there's not enough water, not to poison them with toxins.
Without added nitrites there is no bacon. It doesn't exist. Nitrites are what make it bacon.
And the additives are exactly what make it safer. Without erythorbic acid it forms a lot more nitrosamines.
TLDR: NASA turned it off and back on.
It's really slow.
There's certainly room for stretches of imagination. The bidder can probably refuse to purchase based on then item materially different than advertised, this cannot be "harmed". That is probably the extent of it. Southebys will certainly not legally enforce the bid, but probably give first refusal.
The bidder will almost certainly buy it anyway.
My ancestors were killed by pythons! The language should change its name.
On a serious note, Iâ(TM)d never associated the two before this article. Thereâ(TM)s nothing forbidden about the words master or slave in this context. Itâ(TM)s the association we attach, correct or not, that affects the interpretation.
That said itâ(TM)s still more descriptive to use words like controller, but parent already has a clear definition in cs which would be made ambiguous if used in place of master.
That was angsty and existential, like watching Garfield without Garfield.
It's a CMOS, but their 42mpx full frame sensor was developed by Sony and Nikon and both use it in different cameras. What's Nikon going to do? Nikon is going to join them.
Sony has pioneered this with their a7s line and have some of the best low light sensors made. Phone cameras kind of have a requirement for cramming in pixels due to the size. I'd be happy with a 5mpx camera that's very sensitive to low light, but most people wouldn't.
The main thing the sensor size gets you is better separation with depth of field. That gives far more artistic options.
If you're shooting something where you want a really large dof, this tiny phone camera sensor will work great.
Putting a sensor like this in a mirrorless, like a m43 mount, might lead to some really nice cameras outside the phone camera realm, too.
Personally i think the law should require notice of copyright in the form of a watermark or some other means.
While this is a de facto method of preventing infringement, it's automatically copyrighted by treaty that nearly all nations have signed onto.
This requirement you suggest is really bad. If someone crops or removes a watermark and reposts it, it would allow someone else to appropriate that image. You could make a company that all it does is remove watermarks from one of the few countries that is not a Berne treaty signatory, and others could claim it wasn't copyrighted because it had no watermark, ignoring that some asshole removed the notice.
By making it automatically copyrighted, it removes this dangerous loophole. If it's fixed in a permanent medium, it's copyrighted. Oddly, the creative commons accidentally added it back in, because some people were doing exactly that and causing a minefield for people using works in the creative commons. It puts a big burden to double-check all CC works.
The court doesn’t think there’s any evidence that Brammer was financially harmed by the photo’s use.
This is what they ruled, and that is not consistent with the law.
They used it for commercial purposes. That they claim the owner wasn't harmed is not part of the criteria for fair use, but rather, determining damages.
It is absolutely commercial use, and it should absolutely be appealed for the sake of all photographers out there. This is opening the gates for theft, and I'm sure every stock image company will chip in to pay for his legal fees... and a few large corporations like google might chip in to fight it anticipating a huge amount of new revenue.
Hi, we're Western Union notifying you of possible relief. We understand you fell victim to a Nigerian Prince Scam.
We set aside USD$586,000,000 as a relief fund, and you can claim your portion of it.
Just send us a $1490 processing fee and we will process your loss.
thatsthejoke.jpg
But actually, why don't you agree with having to prove (via incredibly simple quiz) that you read the article you're about to comment on? If you comment without having read it, it's automatically off-topic.
It's like trying to discuss answers on an english test based only on the answer, without having read the question.
What you said about emulators might be true, but is immaterial.
He was found out because they looked at the code and found it mathematically impossible for the code to generate that time.
Many other techniques are used to find cheaters. Some of them double-down and have everything removed from the leaderboards as not only being cheats, but haven't learned to stop lying. Others have confessed, and recreated some of their legitimate scores.
Here's a pretty good video about speed-run cheaters.
Bleem! was a really cool PSx emulator, and the graphics actually looked better. Often game textures were higher res in the files, but the PSx couldn't display them. Your PC could, however, and many games looked far better on the PC.
I bough several copies of Bleem! in order to throw money at them, while they would face the inevitable lawsuit from Sony. They did, and they were financially crushed under the legal boot when Sony eventually brought it to bear. Never even went to court.